Nurse arrested on camera

[Laurie4b]

Am I right to think that the hospital had probably already drawn blood for legitimate treatment reasons? Would a ER check drugs/other substances in a case like this in order, for example, to insure that they don't administer sedative that are dangerous in combination with alcohol?

 

I ask because I question the idea that the officer wanted to protect the patient in a potential civil suit or to protect the police department if there were a suit against it by the patient. I am thinking in either situation, those records would be subpoenaed anyway. Am I wrong?

 

 

Oh yeah, they had the blood. Bully and arrest first and ask questions later. That came out in pompous jerk's questioning of the nurse. 

 

Kind of like, "Well if we'd known that, this could all have been avoided.:" 

 

Yeah,, dude. Use. Your. Words. 

[TeenagerMom]

Yes, I believe that guy who was being a pompous jerk as a lieutenant. And I read somewhere the guy who made the arrest was told to. 

 

The nurse was following the LAW not just hospital policies. 

 

And if the police department had to change their policies, doesn't that raise the questions about whether their policies contravened the law? 

 

I bet their policies absolutely did and the body cam footage basically shows that the first officer has bullied nurses into providing him with blood illegally before because he said once or twice "I've never had it go this far" which is telling that they have had opposition in the past.

[TeenagerMom]

Oh yeah, they had the blood. Bully and arrest first and ask questions later. That came out in pompous jerk's questioning of the nurse. 

 

Kind of like, "Well if we'd known that, this could all have been avoided.:" 

 

Yeah,, dude. Use. Your. Words. 

 

Or get a warrant in the FIRST place, since that's, you know, the law.......

 

I really think they knew they wouldn't get a judge to sign off for a warrant for blood on an unconscious victim.

[Laurie4b]

Another question I have about this situation is where the heck were the hospital administrators? They should have had their backsides down there taking the heat and take it off the nurse not be talking to the officers over nurse;'s cell phone.

 

Nurses are way down the food chain and the cops know it. I think they would have responded better if the hospital CEO, chief of staff, etc. showed up. This wasn't the ER in the middle of the night. It was broad daylight. 

 

They never did show up as far as I could tell and those videos went on a long time. 

[TeenagerMom]

Another question I have about this situation is where the heck were the hospital administrators? They should have had their backsides down there taking the heat and take it off the nurse not be talking to the officers over nurse;'s cell phone.

 

Nurses are way down the food chain and the cops know it. I think they would have responded better if the hospital CEO, chief of staff, etc. showed up. This wasn't the ER in the middle of the night. It was broad daylight. 

 

They never did show up as far as I could tell and those videos went on a long time. 

 

They said they were on their way on the phone call and the guy in the white shirt, I am pretty sure was the House Supervisor. The guy in the white shirt also said administration was on the way and had the Privacy Officer on the phone too.  The nurse was the charge nurse from the burn unit I think.

[Farrar]

The nurse was following the LAW not just hospital policies. 

 

That's something that seems to keep getting lost in a lot of conversations I've been reading about this. Yes, it was a specific policy she was following, but the reason the policy was written the way it was written is because of Supreme Court decisions specifically about blood draws in cases like this. Yes, they could change the policy... but not significantly, not without opening it up for challenge. This wasn't just a bureaucratic issue. Like, I've seen several conversations where people are saying things like, oh, she was in an impossible situation - she couldn't take the blood, but the officer needed the blood, blah blah... as if these are two equal issues.

[Murphy101]

Her hands were shaking when she was showing the policy to the officer. She must have been so scared, rightly so. The hospital has said that an administrator will now handle all discussions with police from now on.

 

 

 

She had the administrator on the cell phone speaker while she was showing the cop the paperwork policy. The admin is literally saying on the speaker to the cop that he needs to stop threatening the nurses and the cop goes all batshit temper tantrum at being told that. It was nuts. Neither one of those cops should EVER be allowed to have a gun or a civil servant job again.

 

 

I bet their policies absolutely did and the body cam footage basically shows that the first officer has bullied nurses into providing him with blood illegally before because he said once or twice "I've never had it go this far" which is telling that they have had opposition in the past.

As far as I'm concerned, every single case involving labwork and this cop needs to be investigated for legality now. Even his cases that should have been valid will now be in question and possibly tossed bc of his thuggery. What an asshole disgrace to the badge.

[RootAnn]

From the article I read, the first police officer's boss, a lieutenant, told him to arrest the nurse if she wouldn't let them have the blood.

 

From the same article, it said that a routine blood draw had already occurred as part of the treatment, so it existed. The police officer apparently didn't know a vial already got drawn (not for police use, but for hospital use) and was pushing hard to get one.

 

The nurse, IMO, did a great job protecting that victim's rights. Changes definitely need to take place in that police department!!

[gardenmom5]

Which is why police everywhere are having trust issues with the community. Everyone trusts nurses.

 

they shouldn't automatically trust nurses either.  there is currently a case where a nurse is being accused of murdering  ***86*** of her patients!  (sadly, not the first accused of murdering/abusing a patient.  and I'm not talking about nursing homes either!)

 

I had a nurse in L&D who, bluntly put, was a bully.

 

Blergh...keyboard freaked out on me and posted before I was ready. 

 

Oregon has a stated policy on HIPAA and Law Enforcement. 

different state. . . .

 

Am I right to think that the hospital had probably already drawn blood for legitimate treatment reasons? Would a ER check drugs/other substances in a case like this in order, for example, to insure that they don't administer sedative that are dangerous in combination with alcohol?

 

I ask because I question the idea that the officer wanted to protect the patient in a potential civil suit or to protect the police department if there were a suit against it by the patient. I am thinking in either situation, those records would be subpoenaed anyway. Am I wrong?

 

yes - they would have drawn multiple vials. cbc, iron, etc. etc. etc.  each vial would be prepped differently, and even if they legally could - those vials would have already been prepped for they tests the drs ordered and wouldn't be useful for whatever the cop wanted to do with it.

 

 

Or get a warrant in the FIRST place, since that's, you know, the law.......

 

I really think they knew they wouldn't get a judge to sign off for a warrant for blood on an unconscious victim.

 

IF the patient had been under arrest - they wouldn't have had to wait for a warrant because how time affects metabolism of an intoxicant.  HOWEVER - they guy wasn't under arrest, wasn't the cause of the accident - he was nothing but a victim who was seriously injured as collateral damage in a police chase.

 

because he was a victim - no ethical judge would have signed off on giving the cops his blood.

[Danestress]

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, every single case involving labwork and this cop needs to be investigated for legality now. Even his cases that should have been valid will now be in question and possibly tossed bc of his thuggery. What an asshole disgrace to the badge.

That would have been the job of the defense attorney.

[Murphy101]

The nurse was amazing. She was obviously distraught, but she kept her cool and stood her ground. I think the moment when he lost his damn mind and started arresting her was just so... surreal she just couldn't believe it. And to know that everyone just stood there and let it happen when she is saying help me... just... I doubt she will ever be the same. I know in my head why those people just stood there and let that cop act that way... after all he had a gun and he is a cop... and yet... their odds were still higher in their favor numbers wise. What would he have done if they had just silently stood in front of the door and said, "enough". Given that he is a freakin nutter, I'm glad he didn't feel the need to open fire on everyone. I feel just awful for her. I wonder if she will feel safe going back to work. 😥

[TeenagerMom]

Another thing that I think keeps getting lost is this man was already OUT of the ER and had been admitted to the burn unit.  He was probably being KEPT under heavy sedation due to the extent of his injuries, meaning any NEW blood draw would show whatever drugs the hospital was administering also.

[Laurie4b]

They said they were on their way on the phone call and the guy in the white shirt, I am pretty sure was the House Supervisor. The guy in the white shirt also said administration was on the way and had the Privacy Officer on the phone too.  The nurse was the charge nurse from the burn unit I think.

 

What is a House Supervisor?  Do you mean the guy in the white polo? He seemed like he had no authority to me. And if he was higher than the charge nurse in the hierarchy, why didn't he say, "You've got the wrong person under arrest? Arrest me."  He kept talking to someone else on the phone. 

 

The "privacy officer" was "on the phone."  Not high enough up the hierarchy and present. 

 

I did hear "administration" was "on the way."  Whoever was on the phone and said, "You're making a mistake. You're threatening a nurse" could have been there by the time she was in the police car and could have been the dude to interact with pompous jerk dude. 

 

 I can't fathom the amount of time it took for them not to show up in person. And I live near a big honkin' hospital so I don't think that distance to cover would have prevented  a more timely arrival.  If they did get there they sure weren't taking the heat off her.  

[FaithManor]

That would have been the job of the defense attorney.

I think there should be a judicial review and investigation of the last five years of cases involving this officer.

[Murphy101]

That would have been the job of the defense attorney.

Yes. And when it comes to light later that possibly things were not done as they were told, they might have cause to demand cases be reopened.

[TeenagerMom]

What is a House Supervisor?  Do you mean the guy in the white polo? He seemed like he had no authority to me. And if he was higher than the charge nurse in the hierarchy, why didn't he say, "You've got the wrong person under arrest? Arrest me."  He kept talking to someone else on the phone. 

 

The "privacy officer" was "on the phone."  Not high enough up the hierarchy and present. 

 

I did hear "administration" was "on the way."  Whoever was on the phone and said, "You're making a mistake. You're threatening a nurse" could have been there by the time she was in the police car and could have been the dude to interact with pompous jerk dude. 

 

 I can't fathom the amount of time it took for them not to show up in person. And I live near a big honkin' hospital so I don't think that distance to cover would have prevented  a more timely arrival.  If they did get there they sure weren't taking the heat off her.  

 

A House Supervisor is the nurse in charge of the entire hospital.  The guy in the white even SAID she was just doing her job.  The guy on the phone again who was the hospital administrator asked why he was getting mad with HER because she is the just the messenger, meaning she was following HIS orders. 

 

The hospital I worked at, it could have easily taken more than 10-20 minutes for an administrator to arrive.  Heck, it often took that long just for a House Supervisor to arrive when issues would come up depending on where they were in the hospital at the time and our's wasn't even that big.  But for administration to come over to our unit, they had to go down 3 flights in an elevator, leave that building and walk about 50 ft to another entrance and through the hospital to the backside where we were.  And if it was during the day, the administrator on the phone could have been gone to a meeting at another location, off site for lunch, etc.   At the end of the video, there is another woman who shows up and is talking to the police also.  I think they were just on the way but didn't anticipate a psychotic bully cop going off.

[Danestress]

Yes. And when it comes to light later that possibly things were not done as they were told, they might have cause to demand cases be reopened.

What would they not have been told?

 

In cases in which the results of a blood draw were used as evidence, an attorney would have had the opportunity to look into whether their was a warrant, consent, or probable cause and to obtain the evidence and raised that issue.

[ErinE]

Another question I have about this situation is where the heck were the hospital administrators? They should have had their backsides down there taking the heat and take it off the nurse not be talking to the officers over nurse;'s cell phone.

 

Nurses are way down the food chain and the cops know it. I think they would have responded better if the hospital CEO, chief of staff, etc. showed up. This wasn't the ER in the middle of the night. It was broad daylight. 

 

They never did show up as far as I could tell and those videos went on a long time. 

 

 

The privacy officer was on the phone. I think an administrator was there (in a white polo). He argues with officer when the nurse is hauled outside. Another man appears which I would make a tentative guess is the department head as he keeps saying it's his department and asking why she's being arrested. So it seems like the hospital administration was represented.

 

Bear in mind, the arrest happened so quickly. There was no warning. From what we can see, the officer didn't say, "If you don't give us the blood, I will arrest you." He tells the other officer he's been instructed to arrest her, but as far as we can see on the released videos, doesn't inform the nurse of this.

 

My thoughts come from a close relative being a hospital administrator so this is based on how that relative handled tricky situations (though never anything like this).

 

From what I've seen, it was a dispute. Officers want access to the patient. Hospital policy said no. The nurse was trying to follow hospital policy while still being responsive to the officer's request. I'd guess in the past nurses had been the one to handle it. No one in the hospital was expecting things to escalate, especially so fast.

 

For the CEO to step into a unknown situation, having been given only a quick briefing, would run the risk he or she will say or do something wrong or make a mistake that exposes the nurse and hospital to liability. In the second video, you can see the officer playing a dominance game with the hospital employee who was there the whole time. The cop claims he doesn't need to speak to the privacy officer, that the hospital policy is interfering with his law, and he's fed up with them. It was clear the officer wouldn't respect any hospital employee intervening on the nurse's behalf at that moment.

 

Although the nurse is alone in the car, hospital employees can be seen hovering around the car observing.

 

Based on my business experience, once the CEO was informed of a nurse's arrest, after saying "Are you kidding me?!?", he or she was on the phone with their legal department. Rule number one when arrested: never talk to cops without a lawyer present.

 

The cops were completely wrong here. It sounds like the administration backed up the nurse at that moment and throughout the ordeal. It was the slow response from the city and police department that prompted the nurse to release the videos.

 

The hospital claims to have changed their policies so that administrators will be the ones to deal with the cops. The cops abused their access to the nursing staff so they don't get to talk to nurses anymore. 

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by ErinE

[maize]

I'm really glad there was body cam footage in this case.

[Guest]

I wonder what would have happened if the nurse were male??

[Daria]

I wonder if the patient will sue too.

 

First, the police contribute to the accident that injured him.  

 

Next, they try and violate his civil rights, in an effort to smear him.

 

Then, at a point where he critically needs medical help, they remove one of the most experienced members of his medical team for 20 minutes plus however long the original argument took.  

 

And now his privacy is violated, with videos all over the internet.

 

 

[Seasider]

I'm really glad there was body cam footage in this case.

Though it sort of boggles the mind to think that the officers behaved as they did even while being recorded.

[maize]

Am I understanding correctly that this nurse was from the burn unit not the ER?

 

I'm wondering if this has been an ongoing thing with the police department but usually it is understaffed and overworked ER nurses they are dealing with who don't have the time or mental energy to argue so just give in to their bullying?

[TeenagerMom]

Am I understanding correctly that this nurse was from the burn unit not the ER?

 

I'm wondering if this has been an ongoing thing with the police department but usually it is understaffed and overworked ER nurses they are dealing with who don't have the time or mental energy to argue so just give in to their bullying?

 

Yes, this was the burn unit.

[ErinE]

I wonder if the patient will sue too.

 

First, the police contribute to the accident that injured him.

 

Next, they try and violate his civil rights, in an effort to smear him.

 

Then, at a point where he critically needs medical help, they remove one of the most experienced members of his medical team for 20 minutes plus however long the original argument took.

 

And now his privacy is violated, with videos all over the internet.

Also the number of people assuming the patient was the cause of the accident (defending the cops asking for his blood) is frustrating. It was a terrible, unavoidable car accident on the patient's part. Edited September 2, 2017 by ErinE

[Retired]

I'm a ER nurse this nurse was a burn patient unit charge nurse.   She followed the law and protected her patients and her license .  I and my coworkers have watch the long unedited version.

 

There was a couple of things she could of done to deescalate the cop.  But since she doesn't work ER she doesn't know the MVA ER procedures.   My guess they did a tox screen on arrival.  We do them on every MVA.  

 

So she could of said I can't allow you assess its against policy but let me see if a tox screen was done in the ER  or she could of directed him to the patients MD.  THe nurse should of not dealt with this guy for an hour.  She should of volleyed off to someone higher up the chain.     Yeah she had administration or someone on the phone but the police had been badgering her for an hour by this point.  They were not getting there way. .She was taking the nice nurse diplomatic thing to far.   The guys in the white shirts were probably administration  staff or house supervisor.  The 2 security guards were a joke

 

SHe did the right thing but she should of told them to wait in the ER and someone above her paygrade would come see them

 

SHe was being nurse nice and this cop got a power trip.  He was in the wrong.  The second cop was coming in without full information trying to be man diplomatic condescending  to her.

 

The sad thing is the guy was still working until just a few days ago.

 

also adding that this cop would of been drawing blood on a patient that had already receive opioid pain med.  It would of not been accurate.  He surely knew this.  THis is one of the reason we draw upon arrival.  

 

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Cafelattee

[Danestress]

Am I understanding correctly that this nurse was from the burn unit not the ER?

 

I'm wondering if this has been an ongoing thing with the police department but usually it is understaffed and overworked ER nurses they are dealing with who don't have the time or mental energy to argue so just give in to their bullying?

Hard to say. It is kind of a special circumstance that the patient was (1) unconscious and (2) a victim and (3) there were no grounds at all (let alone probable cause) to think the victim was also committing a crime.

[Corraleno]

It really bugs me that so many of the news stories about this event portray the nurse's refusal to allow the blood draw as "hospital policy" when in fact she was defending the patient's constitutional rights, not just the hospital's policy. The Supreme Court ruled that forced blood draws are a violation of the 4th Amendment, unless the person gives consent, is under arrest, or the police have obtained a warrant. What the cop was demanding was not just a violation of "policy," it was absolutely, unequivocally illegal.

[Cosmos]

Though it's minor in the scheme of things, it bothered me that the second officer, the one who spoke to her while she was in the car, kept referring to her as a "young lady". "I need to figure out what to do with this young lady," as if she's a naughty child, rather than an adult woman, a nurse, and a hospital employee. It was just one more way he undermined her authority and credentials.

 

Is there more than one video? I've seen the 19:22 video from the Deseret News  (it was also linked earlier here), but I've seen some people referring to the "second video".

 

[FaithManor]

It really bugs me that so many of the news stories about this event portray the nurse's refusal to allow the blood draw as "hospital policy" when in fact she was defending the patient's constitutional rights, not just the hospital's policy. The Supreme Court ruled that forced blood draws are a violation of the 4th Amendment, unless the person gives consent, is under arrest, or the police have obtained a warrant. What the cop was demanding was not just a violation of "policy," it was absolutely, unequivocally illegal.

Yes this! And I believe he should be arrested for assault and unlawful arrest against her, and charged by internal affairs with anything they can think up. Putting him on national T.V. being sentenced and lead to jail might make a dent in this idea that constitutional rights are like pirate code, "merely guidelines".

[Danestress]

It really bugs me that so many of the news stories about this event portray the nurse's refusal to allow the blood draw as "hospital policy" when in fact she was defending the patient's constitutional rights, not just the hospital's policy. The Supreme Court ruled that forced blood draws are a violation of the 4th Amendment, unless the person gives consent, is under arrest, or the police have obtained a warrant. What the cop was demanding was not just a violation of "policy," it was absolutely, unequivocally illegal.

Because from her perspective, she was following policy. She wasn't citing constitutional law. Apparently the cop claimed to be acting under the old 'implied consent' law. She didn't argue new case law, f she was aware of it. She relied on hospital policy. We don't necessarily want nurses interpreting the Bill of Rights nor do we expect them to. That's why the hospital and police department had a clear policy that complied with the law.

[Murphy101]

I'm a ER nurse this nurse was a burn patient unit charge nurse. She followed the law and protected her patients and her license . I and my coworkers have watch the long unedited version.

 

There was a couple of things she could of done to deescalate the cop. But since she doesn't work ER she doesn't know the MVA ER procedures. My guess they did a tox screen on arrival. We do them on every MVA.

 

So she could of said I can't allow you assess its against policy but let me see if a tox screen was done in the ER or she could of directed him to the patients MD. THe nurse should of not dealt with this guy for an hour. She should of volleyed off to someone higher up the chain. Yeah she had administration or someone on the phone but the police had been badgering her for an hour by this point. They were not getting there way. .She was taking the nice nurse diplomatic thing to far. The guys in the white shirts were probably administration staff or house supervisor. The 2 security guards were a joke

 

SHe did the right thing but she should of told them to wait in the ER and someone above her paygrade would come see them

 

SHe was being nurse nice and this cop got a power trip. He was in the wrong. The second cop was coming in without full information trying to be man diplomatic condescending to her.

 

The sad thing is the guy was still working until just a few days ago.

 

also adding that this cop would of been drawing blood on a patient that had already receive opioid pain med. It would of not been accurate. He surely knew this. THis is one of the reason we draw upon arrival.

From the very start of the unedited vid she is asking him to calm down and just let her explain her situation. I'd be interested to see video of what happened before they turned on their cams (and why the bleep don't they keep the cams on?!) bc from the very start she was trying to calm him down and it's obvious that everyone in the vid is already really tense.

 

I do agree about the security guards. They were playing all buddy buddy wannabes with the cops like they were annoyed with her too. Wt* was up with that?

 

The whole thing made no damn sense at all ... surreal keeps coming to mind.

 

I did like the guys in white polos. I don't know who they were but they were the only ones with balls to at least try to stand by her literally and figuratively.

 

I feel awful for her.

 

Eta: Also, I'm tired of everyone talking about the policy. It's the LAW. The hospital can't or shouldn't have some private agreement to let police break the law. It disturbs me greatly that apparently that police department is used to presuming intimidation to get that "agreement" from medical staff.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

Because from her perspective, she was following policy. She wasn't citing constitutional law. Apparently the cop claimed to be acting under the old 'implied consent' law. She didn't argue new case law, f she was aware of it. She relied on hospital policy. We don't necessarily want nurses interpreting the Bill of Rights nor do we expect them to. That's why the hospital and police department had a clear policy that complied with the law.

Yes that doesn't bother me. But too many places/people seem to think the problem was that she was being some kind of by the book stickler who needed to just listen to the cops. I have to wonder if any of them people have even watched the video or have any comprehension of patient rights.

 

There's more than a few people who say no matter what a cops says, people should do it and if they don't, well anything that happens is their fault for being stupid enough not to listen to a cop.

 

No. She was not even slightly belligerent or aggressive or mouthy. She maintained professionalism and stood firm on doing the right thing. She never mad sudden movements or threats. She did everything right. Medical staff calmly insisting on following the law in a professional manner shouldn't piss off any cop worth having a badge.

[Danestress]

Eta: Also, I'm tired of everyone talking about the policy. It's the LAW. The hospital can't or shouldn't have some private agreement to let police break the law. It disturbs me greatly that apparently that police department is used to presuming intimidation to get that "agreement" from medical staff.

The Supreme Court decision limiting police authority to obtain involuntary blood draws is pretty recent. It takes a long time to revise legislation, and many states still have laws on the books that include "implied consent" for obtaining blood draws.

 

The hospital and police department weren't making a private agreement. Would you suggest the hospital not have a policy but just tell nurses to "follow the law?"

Edited September 2, 2017 by Danestress

[Corraleno]

Because from her perspective, she was following policy. She wasn't citing constitutional law. Apparently the cop claimed to be acting under the old 'implied consent' law. She didn't argue new case law, f she was aware of it. She relied on hospital policy. We don't necessarily want nurses interpreting the Bill of Rights nor do we expect them to. That's why the hospital and police department had a clear policy that complied with the law.

 

Even in the unlikely event that she was unaware that the hospital's policy was based on actual law, and not just some administrator's preference, reporters are not limited to reporting one person's perception of the event. That's just crappy reporting to not cite the fact that the police were trying to bully her into committing an illegal act and violating a patient's constitutional rights. Too many people are reading reports citing "hospital policy" and thinking she should have complied because police authority trumps "hospital policy." Police authority does not trump constitutional law.

 

 

The Supreme Court decision limiting police authority to obtain involuntary blood draws is pretty recent. It takes a long time to revise legislation, and many states still have laws on the books that include "implied consent" for obtaining blood draws.

 

 

Even if a police phlebotomist was somehow ignorant of a key Supreme Court decision that specifically affected his authority to do his job (which is ridiculous in itself), he should at least be aware of Utah state laws going back to 1979:

 

"Utah’s implied consent statute requires any person who operates a vehicle in the State of Utah to submit to a chemical test to determine alcohol or drug content. Although that person may withdraw the consent, an officer may seek a warrant to forcibly collect a sample.

Due process requires that a peace officer must have reasonable grounds for his belief that the person requested to submit to the chemical test was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; reasonable grounds exist where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the situation exists. Ballard v. State, Motor Vehicle Div., 595 P.2d 1302 (Utah 1979) "

 

There were no grounds whatsoever for believing that the truck driver was under the influence, which Payne admitted on camera, when he said he knew he could not get a warrant since there was no probable cause. I think he knew perfectly well that he had no legal right to demand the blood sample, but just assumed he could bully the nurse into doing it. 

[Guest]

I still don't understand why he wanted the blood sample at all. Can someone explain that to me please?

[SKL]

Local law enforcement websites have taken the unusual step of outright condemning the Utah cops' actions.

[Corraleno]

I still don't understand why he wanted the blood sample at all. Can someone explain that to me please?

 

Police claimed they wanted to test it for drugs and alcohol to "protect" the victim. Which is patently absurd — protect the victim from what? Most people seem to think they were trying to cover their own asses in case the victim sued the police for contributing to the accident because of the high speed chase. So they were hoping to find something in the victim's system that they could use to blame the victim instead.

[Mimm]

The Supreme Court decision limiting police authority to obtain involuntary blood draws is pretty recent. It takes a long time to revise legislation, and many states still have laws on the books that include "implied consent" for obtaining blood draws.

 

The hospital and police department weren't making a private agreement. Would you suggest the hospital not have a policy but just tell nurses to "follow the law?"

 

Nurses should quote policy. But PEOPLE in general should realize this isn't some stupid random rule the hospital has for funsies. News articles should do their job in pointing out that this is an important law protecting our rights.

 

I'm also disturbed by people who think cops should be obeyed without question. Do people not care that we actually have rights as citizens of this country?

 

ETA: But yes, I would also expect nurses to have a pretty good knowledge of what the law entails as part of their job. Doctors, nurses, all medical professionals. It's an important job, and the laws surrounding it are very important.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Mimm

[Daria]

I still don't understand why he wanted the blood sample at all. Can someone explain that to me please?

 

I assume he was afraid that law enforcement would be blamed because his accident was the result of a police chase, and was hoping that if he tested positive they could deflect that blame.

[SKL]

If the person crashed because of the cops being in a chase, the cops would arguably be at fault.  If they could say the driver was intoxicated, people might not blame them.  That's my thought, anyway.

[Murphy101]

The Supreme Court decision limiting police authority to obtain involuntary blood draws is pretty recent. It takes a long time to revise legislation, and many states still have laws on the books that include "implied consent" for obtaining blood draws.

 

The hospital and police department weren't making a private agreement. Would you suggest the hospital not have a policy but just tell nurses to "follow the law?"

Ugh. We are in agreement. I apparently didn't make myself clear.

[Mimm]

I assume he was afraid that law enforcement would be blamed because his accident was the result of a police chase, and was hoping that if he tested positive they could deflect that blame.

 

And the reason they were bullying a nurse is because of course they couldn't get a warrant for a blood draw on a victim who isn't even suspected of doing anything wrong.

[gardenmom5]

 . News articles should do their job i

 

um. . is that like journalists should use correct grammar?  cite sources? use facts, not opinions?  (this isn't the op-ed page),  not write an article having already decided what their message is going to be?

 

those are pretty darn rare, and outright exception these days.

[Word Nerd]

The nurse was following the LAW not just hospital policies.

 

Worth reposting.

 

I'm disturbed by the number of comments I've seen on news articles and videos about this (not here) from people who think no matter what an LEO tells you to do, you have no right to question it, much less refuse, even if following the order means you are breaking the law.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Word Nerd

[Danestress]

Even in the unlikely event that she was unaware that the hospital's policy was based on actual law, and not just some administrator's preference, reporters are not limited to reporting one person's perception of the event. That's just crappy reporting to not cite the fact that the police were trying to bully her into committing an illegal act and violating a patient's constitutional rights. Too many people are reading reports citing "hospital policy" and thinking she should have complied because police authority trumps "hospital policy." Police authority does not trump constitutional law.

 

 

 

 

Even if a police phlebotomist was somehow ignorant of a key Supreme Court decision that specifically affected his authority to do his job (which is ridiculous in itself), he should at least be aware of Utah state laws going back to 1979:

 

"Utah’s implied consent statute requires any person who operates a vehicle in the State of Utah to submit to a chemical test to determine alcohol or drug content. Although that person may withdraw the consent, an officer may seek a warrant to forcibly collect a sample.

 

 

 

Due process requires that a peace officer must have reasonable grounds for his belief that the person requested to submit to the chemical test was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; reasonable grounds exist where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the situation exists. Ballard v. State, Motor Vehicle Div., 595 P.2d 1302 (Utah 1979) "

 

There were no grounds whatsoever for believing that the truck driver was under the influence, which Payne admitted on camera, when he said he knew he could not get a warrant since there was no probable cause. I think he knew perfectly well that he had no legal right to demand the blood sample, but just assumed he could bully the nurse into doing it.

I don't understand why you are citing a case about civil revocation of a drivers license. Utah has revised its implied consent laws since this case anyway, but how do you think it applies to this case?

[Danestress]

Nurses should quote policy. But PEOPLE in general should realize this isn't some stupid random rule the hospital has for funsies. News articles should do their job in pointing out that this is an important law protecting our rights.

 

I'm also disturbed by people who think cops should be obeyed without question. Do people not care that we actually have rights as citizens of this country?

 

ETA: But yes, I would also expect nurses to have a pretty good knowledge of what the law entails as part of their job. Doctors, nurses, all medical professionals. It's an important job, and the laws surrounding it are very important.

I don't understand how to comment quote by quote. But (1) I think the news sources I have read make it pretty clear that this wasn't the hospital having funsies and that these is constitutional law that applies

(2)I agree. I feel l like I spend a lot of time trying to tell people what their rights are when stopped/questioned/detained by police officers. Some people think they don't need to protect their civil rights. Sigh.

(3) I think this nurse did have a good idea about the requirement for her to draw blood. I bet most do. She was very professional. She called her supervisor to confirm the policy. She consulted the policy to confirm and also to try to explain to the cop why she couldn't do what he wanted. I am glad she had that policy to print out instead of having to pull up legislation and cases interpreting it. I don't understand anyone thinking this policy was some kind of private agreement.

[Audrey]

I'm really glad there was body cam footage in this case.

 

 

Yes, but it begs the question... if this is what this bully acts like knowing the cameras are ON, how does he act when he knows the cameras are OFF? 

[Audrey]

 

I'm also disturbed by people who think cops should be obeyed without question. Do people not care that we actually have rights as citizens of this country?

 

 

 

I agree 100%, and this needs to be re-posted.  

[Laurie4b]

Yes this! And I believe he should be arrested for assault and unlawful arrest against her, and charged by internal affairs with anything they can think up. Putting him on national T.V. being sentenced and lead to jail might make a dent in this idea that constitutional rights are like pirate code, "merely guidelines".

 

Or something you pursue justice for after the fact by suing.   

 

It should be a big freaking deal when LEO deliberately disregard Constitutional rights.